Did you must make up that number?

Its a real number but that’s where the reality ends.

I bet ….

That’s a yes then

Another question – who here would quit their job if they had £500/mo basic income? Would you sit around all day watching telly?

A more telling question would have been who, having adapted to a lifestyle where they are able to survive on a £500/mo basic income which allowed them to sit around all day watching telly would switch it off and give up most of their waking hours to go out and work?

The inertia of the poor is a powerful force and i’ve grown up surrounded by it.
I am older now at 45 than my father was the last time he worked for a days pay.
People fall in by accident or circumstance, initially try to climb back out, fail, adapt and then spend the rest of their lives at that level.
Almost no one makes the conscious choice to start to live like that. Many find themselves surviving in that situation and are unwilling or unable to change back again.

1.45 million people are unemployed in the UK at the moment…

Which is different from your claim

1.45 million people are unemployed in the UK at the moment…

string ’em up! String everyone up.

Sure? What would you actually do?

what I want, when I wanted. Much like retirees do.

TheBrick – Member
Which is different from your claim

Is it though ? How so

Interesting concept thought about over the years.

It’s certainly a concept that would prove valuable to most of society, however Humans need engagement and ownership of “something” and to be involved in “something” The concept of Work instils those.

If, like IF, this was a platform for social reform then the transition period between THEN and NOW would be fraught with chaos and upheaval leading to crass social and economic class distinctions, those that have and those that don’t have.
Where would you start? Old Folks first? Under 20’s? Middle aged? The infirm or disabled? Children about to embark on further education? the Lazy? Unemployed?? the Employed? The list is vast and endless..

What about those like me that want to work, of be part of something? I couldnt sit about picking my pants out of my bottom all day whilst eating Greggs… Sod that. I could “invent” being busy but riding bikes and surfing would get rather dull after a period of time, it would become a form of work where you turn up each day with anticipation only to find its a bit..boring, like work is.

Why should they be funded ?

There’s a certain waste factor that needs to be considered and paid for. i’m cool with that. My instinct would be that it would go someway to reducing the feckless over time.. I have no evidence to back that up mind.

A more telling question would have been who, having adapted to a lifestyle where they are able to survive on a £500/mo basic income which allowed them to sit around all day watching telly would switch it off and give up most of their waking hours to go out and work.

This, this is also important.

A community is only as strong as it’s workers are productive. This applies to all civilisations be it hunter gatherers all the way through to capitalism and everything in between. Would I be happy paying loads more tax so that others can choose not to work? Hell no. Would i be happy paying a few more quid a month to help improve services and support those completely incapable of work? Yes of course.

I 100% agree with the title of this thread.

“The role of the state is to ensure an equitable distribution of not just money, but opportunity to participate and contribute to society. For that to be meaningful, there are likely to be certain services everyone should be able to access.”

Another question – who here would quit their job if they had £500/mo basic income? Would you sit around all day watching telly?

With housing, food, transport and internet paid for then me, absolutely.[/quote]

+1

I rather suspect the country would fall apart pretty rapidly. Govt has to get it’s money by taxing workers/businesses. Except give people the means to not need to work, and you’ll not be generating any tax from them.

I’ve worked for 47 years and I’ve never really liked any of my many jobs. I’d have retired 40 years ago if I could. I’m confident that I would not get bored. Bring it on!

I’m very much against the terminally bone idle getting any money at all but having cleared my mortgage I could happily leave my job and live on £500/month. Sign me up please, sounds great.

The proposal to reduce the tax threshold would go down like a cup of cold sick with voters.

So a story with no practical legs so no surprise that J McD jumped on it

Would be a shame if this diverted attention away from the more interesting idea of a universal basic income replacing the current benefits system. But that won’t happen either…

It’s interesting that people only really bring up the idea that people must work, not really any thought behind the value of said work. Just they got to work. Pretty insane that attitude.

it’s interesting as if you put me to work along with a couple of coders, I could probably make half the jobs in here disappear in a couple of months. Only thing stopping that happening is the incompetence of those above, it’ll happen eventually though.

Something of this nature will have to take place. There is going to be absolutely massive upheaval in the employment market in the longer term. Millions of jobs will be replaced by automation.

Have a read of Homo Deus. Its about how our society is going to be massively changed by the coming information revolution. Our human abilities can be divided into physical and cognitive abilities. The previous industrial revolution was largely focused on replacing our physical abilities (machines can be made much stronger than humans and can be made to perform physical work that humans couldn’t accomplish on their own).

The next revolution will be machines supplementing, then replacing and then surpassing our cognitive abilities.

So what do you do with 2 million drivers (to give one example) when they are replaced by autonomous vehicles. Some of them can retrain – a few of them might even end up programming the algorithms that replaced them. But most of them won’t and will have to find work in a world where lots of “traditional” jobs are rapidly disappearing and lots of people are also looking for work.

Unless we actually plan on putting people against a wall then we had better start coming up with a new social arrangement to deal with all the change

With no rent/mortgage to pay? *raises hand* might nip out for a ride every now and then, but I certainly wouldn’t work

Ditto. The best things in life are free, my hobbies don’t require cash, or at least I can find ways to do them on a shoe string. If other people are paying for the basics I’d have no need to work at all.

A more telling question would have been who, having adapted to a lifestyle where they are able to survive on a £500/mo basic income which allowed them to sit around all day watching telly would switch it off and give up most of their waking hours to go out and work?

Why would it have to be ‘most of’ your waking hours?

This is an important point too – if we have our basic needs met, then employers no longer hold all the cards. They would have to make it attractive enough, so you’d get a lot more part time workers. They’d also have to improve working conditions because people would be far less likely to put up with employers’ shit.

Another point @weeksy: What about people who don’t work but already have tons of money? Should we take it off them? If working is what makes you deserving, then they don’t deserve it.

This is an important point too – if we have our basic needs met, then employers no longer hold all the cards. They would have to make it attractive enough, so you’d get a lot more part time workers. They’d also have to improve working conditions because people would be far less likely to put up with employers’ shit.

alot of whom are government so you just increased their costs again.

One more point – the article is about meeting your basic needs, not giving you £500 a month so I may have misled the debate here with that post.

If you only had food, shelter and the internet, you wouldn’t have a bike, chains, tyres, or any of the rest of it. Maybe that’s a better idea than handing out money?

You’d be highly incentivised to go out and work to give you the opportunity to enjoy your life – but more on your terms than your employer’s.

Another point @weeksy: What about people who don’t work but already have tons of money? Should we take it off them? If working is what makes you deserving, then they don’t deserve it.

IT’s a good point… .but them people won’t be claiming anything either will they ? We won’t need to give them housing/food/transport as per the OP as they will be self-sufficient.

The next revolution will be machines supplementing, then replacing and then surpassing our cognitive abilities.

Aye in a 1000 years time, perhaps. Not something we’ll have to worry about, we’ll control them for long enough!

I’m all for embracing automation, but it should be done to everyones benefit, not to a few. Some people going on about having to pay for everyone else, well no, the idea is to get the machines to do the bulk of the work, as humans we can dip in and out of the bits that interest us. The machines shouldn’t be privately owned.

It’s a long term project, and none of us will see the fruits of those ideas, but it’s the next evolutionary step imo.

aye, star trek basically! 😆

It’s interesting talking about the cognitive abilty of machines aswell, we’re no where near the limit of cognitive human ability, things like work for works sake to supply basic essentials holds us back tremendously there.

Our “system” wastes a lot of people.

but them people won’t be claiming anything either will they ?

They could be using the NHS, they will certainly be driving on the roads, maybe calling the fire service or police occasionally, etc etc. So they are using state funds.

The concept is being tested in Scandanavia and Holland. It will be interesting to see the results, but I’m quite keen on the idea.

A more telling question would have been who, having adapted to a lifestyle where they are able to survive on a £500/mo basic income which allowed them to sit around all day watching telly would switch it off and give up most of their waking hours to go out and work.

#

Very good point. You might find a few people who were so desperate for things that require money that they felt it was worth continuing working. What you wouldn’t get would be anyone who was adapted to not working striving to work.

As for the rest of us – well anyone with the resourcefulness to work productively would also have the resourcefulness to entertain themselves on a shoestring.

A huge number of people would work part-time or on contract basis. This might actually be beneficial for employers as they would not have to maintain staff during periods of downtime.

Pretty sure hardly any software engineers would work as permanent staff.

I would say along with this kind of thing as well, we would need to see a massive expansion in the university system with life long learning and research becoming the focus of society. As opposed to paying your mortgage in a dead end job with 2 weeks abroad being the highlight..

A huge number of people would work part-time or on contract basis. This might actually be beneficial for employers as they would not have to maintain staff during periods of downtime.

Zero hours contracts, you mean?

They could be using the NHS, they will certainly be driving on the roads, maybe calling the fire service or police occasionally, etc etc. So they are using state funds.

But you’d assume in the vast majority of these people they’ve paid far more than they’re taking out in previous taxes to enable them to be one of the ‘rich’ subset of society.

If you only had food, shelter and the internet, you wouldn’t have a bike, chains, tyres, or any of the rest of it.

I think it would be easy to find fun things to do that cost nothing, and you can run a bike on a shoestring – especially if nobody has to work so we can all do a vast amount of maintainance/back yard manufacturing/repair on a favour/barter basis between mates.

BUT, if you’re going to give people food, shelter and the internet ‘free’ but still make them work, then we might as well pay directly for food, shelter and the internet with the money we make working.

Otherwise the state is making me work, then taking the cash off me to ‘give’ me food, shelter and the internet – well worse than that because I have to also pay for a middle man to manage the provision of my food, shelter and the internet.

Zero hours contracts, you mean?

If you like, but without the worry of no income on the whims of an employer as remember (silly troll) you’re getting your basic needs met, housing food and shelter.

One more point – the article is about meeting your basic needs, not giving you £500 a month so I may have misled the debate here with that post.

If you only had food, shelter and the internet, you wouldn’t have a bike, chains, tyres, or any of the rest of it. Maybe that’s a better idea than handing out money?

You’d be highly incentivised to go out and work to give you the opportunity to enjoy your life – but more on your terms than your employer’s.

I think this is properly important to the debate.

The problem is –

If you hand out £500 extra to everyone a month, everyone is £500 quid richer and inflation occurs. You need to then supplement your £500 by going to work.

If you hand out “needs vouchers” for £500 then you can’t afford to buy a telly, console, bike – or any of the things you’d need to entertain your utopian dream of not working. You need to go to work to afford luxury items.

Unless Microsoft/Sony start handing out TVs and Playstations for free, and Santa Cruz start shipping us all carbon knarpoons for free, there needs to be a system to exchange something that has value in order to purchase luxury goods.

And thats what I don’t understand fully about UBI – both roads lead to having to go to work to earn more to afford the things you want to spend all your spare time doing.

Can anyone point me at any literature that explains the concept fully?

I’m lucky enough to be in a profession that won’t be automated until we have a very high level of AI, if ever. Does that mean I become richer in real terms as everyone else drops down to UBI and I carry on working?

What happens to services that fall outside of the “Basic needs” definition? Restaurants, for example. If people need to work to earn enough to eat at restaurants, won’t they all go out of business? In what scenario is that good?

you can run a bike on a shoestring

Yes but you wouldn’t even have that – you’d have NO ready cash at all. You’d have to do at least some work, however small, to get that.

But the point is you can quit when you’ve saved up a bit and have had enough. It’s up to you now.

But you’d assume in the vast majority of these people they’ve paid far more than they’re taking out in previous taxes to enable them to be one of the ‘rich’ subset of society.

Well if the ‘vast majority’ did contribute, then that makes it ok to not worry about the small minority? The ones who simply inherited cash for doing nothing? Fair point.

But the vast majority of benefit claimants currently are also decent people looking for work, and yet you seem rather concerned about the small minority who aren’t?

And thats what I don’t understand fully about UBI – both roads lead to having to go to work to earn more to afford the things you want to spend all your spare time doing.

It means:

1) If it all falls apart you won’t end up on the streets or hungry

2) If you want a break from work you can have one far more easily

3) You don’t feel trapped by shit jobs

4) You hold more cards so you can obtain better terms from your employer.

All those things would make society much much happier. I think most people would still work, but most people would work less and everyone would be quite a bit happier. And I think this is what’s most important no – ensuring happiness?

A huge number of people would work part-time or on contract basis.

Yup, and that would be *very* tax efficient for them.

What’s not to love? Everyone pays far less tax. Everyone gets far more from the state. And everyone has for more spare time.

…and yet cynical people hunt for drawbacks to it. Crazy.

The ‘state’ should be as small as possible. Personal responsibility equates to freedom, and the opposite to freedom is the religion of victim hood – otherwise known as socialism.

Can anyone point me at any literature that explains the concept fully?

BIEN

Utrecht

Yup, and that would be *very* tax efficient for them.

For this to work there would have to be massive changes to the way we work. We couldn’t simply starting handing out money in the same system we have now – it’d need to be completely redesigned, and take stuff like that into account.